Fine. I have added a ticket https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T118322
"Merging wizard shouldn't allow dissimilar items to be merged". Perhaps
a developer can help solve the issue.
On 11/10/2015 08:47 PM, Benjamin Good wrote:
You misunderstand me if you thought I was blaming Magnus for this. It
was a hypothesis that right now seems false and we do not yet have
another answer. I do think it is entirely possible that a high-volume,
low-user-expertise game interface could generate problems very much like
what we are observing. I think we should be able to track them more
transparently than we can now.
The widar tag seems a starting point:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&tagfilter=OAuth+CID%3A+93
but this could be improved.
-Ben
p.s. Side note on the game. Other very similar things usually
incorporate some level of redundancy - e.g. you show the same thing to
multiple people and only keep statements where 2 or more people agree..
Lower recall but higher precision - depends on the goal.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Finn Årup Nielsen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If I understand correctly:
1) Magnus' game already tags the edits with 'Widar'.
2) Magnus' game cannot merge protein and genes if they link to each
other. With 'ortholog' and 'expressed by' Magnus' merging game does
not contribute to the problematic merges (Magnus email from
previously today: "FWIW, checked again. Neither game can merge two
items that link to each other. So, if the protein is "expressed by"
the gene, that pair will not even be suggested.").
There is nothing more that Magnus can do, - except making an
unmerging game. :-)
/Finn
On 11/10/2015 05:54 PM, Benjamin Good wrote:
In another thread, we are discussing the preponderance of
problematic
merges of gene/protein items. One of the hypotheses raised to
explain
the volume and nature of these merges (which are often by fairly
inexperienced editors and/or people that seem to only do merges) was
that they were coming from the wikidata game. It seems to me that
anything like the wikidata game that has the potential to generate a
very large volume of edits - especially from new editors - ought
to tag
its contributions so that they can easily be tracked by the
system. It
should be easy to answer the question of whether an edit came
from that
game (or any of what I hope to be many of its descendants).
This will
make it possible to debug what could potentially be large swathes of
problems and to make it straightforward to 'reward' game/other
developers with information about the volume of the edits that
they have
enabled directly from the system (as opposed to their own
tracking data).
Please don't misunderstand me. I am a big fan of the wikidata
game and
actually am pushing for our group to make a bio-specific version
of it
that will build on that code. I see a great potential here - but
because of the potential scale of edits this could quickly
generate, we
(the whole wikidata community) need ways to keep an eye on what
is going
on.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
--
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
--
Finn Årup Nielsen
http://people.compute.dtu.dk/faan/
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
